If A and B are mutually exclusive event then Probability of A or B is P(A)+P(B). If they are not mutually exclusive then it is that minus the probability of the P(A)+P(B) That is to say P( A or B)= P(A)+P(B)- P(A and B). Of course it is clear that if they are mutually exclusive, P(A and B)=0 and we have the first formula.
Independent events are events which are not connected; for example, my choice of food for lunch will have no affect on your choice of a shirt to wear in the morning. Mutually exclusive events are connected. If one happens, the other can't happen. For example, let us say that you are flying an airplane and you have a choice of airports at which you can land. If you land at one airport, you will therefore not land at the other airport, because you can land at only one airport at a time (although you can still land at other airports in the future). At a given time, the events of landing at airport A and landing at airport B are mutually exclusive.
Being a teacher i would say most of the children experience difficuity in finding intersection when there be more then 2 sets particularly when the events are non-mutually exclusive.
Your question is inconsistent on its face. You asked "What shape has zero faces . . . . . and has only one face." I'd say that nothing could ever meet both of those requirements. They are ... how you say ... 'mutually exclusive'.
That depends on your definition of "depends." Mutually exclusive events are events that cannot occur at the same time. If you knew that Independent events most certainly can happen at the same time, you could easily deduce that mutually exclusive events are always dependent events. And while it's true dependent events affect the outcome of one another, that's not so easy to see when your dealing with events that don't occur in succession.It can be said that if a mutually exclusive event occurs, the other events that are mutually exclusive in relation to it have not taken place, i.e. the complement of that event has not taken place. When you look at only two events that are mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive (i.e. all the possible events) like flipping a coin once and getting either a head or a tails (where the probability of the coin landing on it's side is 0), you can say that one event, flipping a head, is dependent on the other event, flipping a tail, not happening. Therefore the events are mutually exclusive.Now imagine two events which are still mutually exclusive but not jointly exhaustive, e.g. rolling a 2 or a 3 with a six sided die. Lets assume the die is not weighted so the probability of each is 1/6. A roll of two does not only depend on not rolling a three. To roll a 2 means not rolling a 1,3,4,5 or 6. To say that rolling a 2 and rolling a 3 are mutually exclusive if the occurrence one depends on the occurrence of the other is ambiguous at best, if not wrong. Rolling a 2 and rolling a 3 are mutually exclusive only because its impossible for both to happen at the same time with one roll, or you can say that P(2and3)=0.It's fair to say that two events are mutually exclusive if the occurrence of one depends on the other not happening. But if you thought that two events are mutually exclusive because the occurrence of one relays on the occurrence of the other then you were wrong. That just describes dependent events in succession.If one event's occurence depends upon the occurence of another, and the events cannot occur with a certain outcome otherwise, they are said to be dependent events. Mutually exclusive events are events that cannot occur together, as the occurence of one prohibits the occurence of the other. An example of a mutually exclusive event is this: two dice are rolled; what is the possibility of rolling both a nine and a double? One cannot roll both a nine and a double simultaneously; therefore, the events are mutually exclusive because one outcome excludes the other. An example of a dependent event is this: Susan is baking cookies. She has enough batter for two dozen chocolate chip cookies and one dozen oatmeal cookies. Therefore, the ratio of chocolate chip to oatmeal is 1.5:1. If Susan's little brother eats half of the chocolate chip cookies, the ratio changes to become 1:1. The possibility of the ratio being 1:1 is dependent upon Susan's brother eating half of the chocolate chip cookies. Thus, it is a dependent event. If one event's occurence depends upon the occurence of another, and the events cannot occur with a certain outcome otherwise, they are said to be dependent events. Mutually exclusive events are events that cannotoccur together, as the occurence of one prohibits the occurence of the other. An example of a mutually exclusive event is this: two dice are rolled; what is the possibility of rolling both a nine and a double? One cannot roll both a nine and a double simultaneously; therefore, the events are mutually exclusive because one outcome excludes the other. An example of a dependent event is this: Susan is baking cookies. She has enough batter for two dozen chocolate chip cookies and one dozen oatmeal cookies. Therefore, the ratio of chocolate chip to oatmeal is 1.5:1. If Susan's little brother eats half of the chocolate chip cookies, the ratio changes to become 1:1. The possibility of the ratio being 1:1 is dependent upon Susan's brother eating half of the chocolate chip cookies. Thus, it is a dependent event. If one event's occurence depends upon the occurence of another, and the events cannot occur with a certain outcome otherwise, they are said to be dependent events. Mutually exclusive events are events that cannotoccur together, as the occurence of one prohibits the occurence of the other. An example of a mutually exclusive event is this: two dice are rolled; what is the possibility of rolling both a nine and a double? One cannot roll both a nine and a double simultaneously; therefore, the events are mutually exclusive because one outcome excludes the other. An example of a dependent event is this: Susan is baking cookies. She has enough batter for two dozen chocolate chip cookies and one dozen oatmeal cookies. Therefore, the ratio of chocolate chip to oatmeal is 1.5:1. If Susan's little brother eats half of the chocolate chip cookies, the ratio changes to become 1:1. The possibility of the ratio being 1:1 is dependent upon Susan's brother eating half of the chocolate chip cookies. Thus, it is a dependent event.Mutually exclusive events refers to the events that cannot occur at the same time.
Mutually exclusive events are occurrences where, say, a couple of propositions are possible, but if one occurs, the other cannot. A coin toss might be a good example. A coin lands heads or it lands tails. It cannot land on both in the same toss. A coin toss, therefore, can be said to be a mutually exclusive event.
Mutually exclusive events are occurrences where, say, a couple of propositions are possible, but if one occurs, the other cannot. A coin toss might be a good example. A coin lands heads or it lands tails. It cannot land on both in the same toss. A coin toss, therefore, can be said to be a mutually exclusive event.
If A and B are mutually exclusive event then Probability of A or B is P(A)+P(B). If they are not mutually exclusive then it is that minus the probability of the P(A)+P(B) That is to say P( A or B)= P(A)+P(B)- P(A and B). Of course it is clear that if they are mutually exclusive, P(A and B)=0 and we have the first formula.
Why do you ask? Do you think mutually exclusive is redundant, like mutually agree? Or do you think the word mutually is misused in that phrase? The word mutualimplies reciprocity. If two people have mutual hatred, they hate each other. (Some people use mutual to mean shared in common, as in our mutual friend. Not all linguists agree on that usage, however.) It is redundant to say two people have mutual hatred for each other. The last three words are superfluous. They have mutual hatred and Their hatred is mutual are adequate, as is They have hatred for each other and They hate each other. So what about mutual exclusivity or mutually exclusive? If the the exclusion is reciprocal, then the term is okay. If two things are mutually exclusive, they can't exist together; they exclude each other; the existence of one precludes the existence of the other. That implies reciprocity. I don't have a problem with either term and think permanent banishment from the language is a bit extreme.
i dont think there is a way :.(
No. A sociopath is just as likely to develop most psychological illnesses as is anyone else, including Schizophrenia (which may be what you are talking about when you say "insanity").
Independent events are events which are not connected; for example, my choice of food for lunch will have no affect on your choice of a shirt to wear in the morning. Mutually exclusive events are connected. If one happens, the other can't happen. For example, let us say that you are flying an airplane and you have a choice of airports at which you can land. If you land at one airport, you will therefore not land at the other airport, because you can land at only one airport at a time (although you can still land at other airports in the future). At a given time, the events of landing at airport A and landing at airport B are mutually exclusive.
Being a teacher i would say most of the children experience difficuity in finding intersection when there be more then 2 sets particularly when the events are non-mutually exclusive.
A contradiction occurs when two statements or beliefs are mutually exclusive and cannot both be true at the same time. It involves asserting the opposite of what has already been stated.
Mode exclusive.
Your question is inconsistent on its face. You asked "What shape has zero faces . . . . . and has only one face." I'd say that nothing could ever meet both of those requirements. They are ... how you say ... 'mutually exclusive'.
exclusif (masc.), exclusive (fem.)